Lenin

============================================================

V. I.
Lenin
Book Review: Karl Kautsky.
Bernstein und das sozialdemokratische Programm. Eine Antikritik
Written:
Written at the end of 1899
Published:
First published in 1928 in
Lenin Miscellany VII
.

      Published according to the manuscript.
Source:
Lenin
	  Collected Works
,

      Progress Publishers,
1964
,

      Moscow,
Volume 4
,

      pages
193-204
.
Translated:
Transcription\Markup:
R. Cymbala
and
D. Walters
Public Domain:
Lenin Internet Archive

      (2003).
You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.
Karl
Kautsky
.
Bernstein tend das sozialdemokratische
	  Programm. Eine

	  Antikritik
[1]
...
In the introduction Kautsky gives voice to some extremely valuable and
      apt ideas on the conditions that must be satisfied by serious and
      conscientious criticism if those undertaking it do not wish to confine
      themselves with in the narrow bounds of soulless pedantry and
      scholasticism, if they do not wish to lose sight of the close and
      indestructible bonds that exist between the “theoretical
      reason” and the “practical reason”—not the practical
      reason of individuals, but of the masses of the population placed in
      specific conditions. Truth, of course, comes first, says Kautsky, and if
      Bernstein has become sincerely convinced of the error of his former
      views, it is his plain duty to give definite expression to his
      convictions. But the trouble with Bernstein is his lack of precisely
      this directness and definiteness. His pamphlet is amazingly
      “encyclopaedic” (as Antonio Labriola has remarked in a
      French magazine); it touches on a mass of problems, an agglomeration of
      questions, but
not on any one
of them does it provide an
      integral and precise exposition of the critic’s new views. The critic
      merely expresses his doubts and abandons difficult and complicated
      questions without any independent analysis after having scarcely touched
      upon them. This brings about, Kautsky notes sarcastically, a strange
      phenomenon: Bernstein’s followers understand his
book in the most diverse ways, whereas his opponents all understand it in
      the same way. Bernstein’s chief objection to his opponents is that they do
      not understand him, that they do not want to understand him. The whole
      series of newspaper and magazine articles that Bernstein has written in
      answer to his opponents has failed to explain his positive views.
Kautsky
begins his counter-criticism with the question of method. He
      examines Bernstein’s objections to the materialist conception of history
      and shows that Bernstein confuses the concept of “determinism”
      with that of “mechanism,” that he confuses freedom of will with
      freedom of action, and without any grounds identifies historical necessity
      with the hopeless position of people under compulsion. The outworn
      accusation of fatalism, which Bernstein also repeats, is refuted by the
      very premises of Marx’s theory of history. Not everything can be reduced
      to the development of the productive forces, says Bernstein. Other factors
      “must be taken into consideration.”
Very
well, answers Kautsky, that is something every investigator must do,
      irrespective of what conception of history guides him. Anyone who wants to
      make us reject Marx’s method, the method that has so brilliantly justified
      itself and continues to justify itself in practice, must take one of two
      paths: either he must reject altogether the idea of objective laws, of the
      necessity of the historical process, and in so doing abandon all attempts
      at providing a scientific basis for sociology; or he must show how he can
      evolve the necessity of the historical process from other factors (ethical
      views, for example), he must show this by an analysis that will stand
      up to at least a remote comparison with Marx’s analysis in
Capital.
Not only has Bernstein not made the slightest attempt to
      do this, but, confining him self to empty platitudes about “taking
      into consideration” other factors, he
has continued
to use
      the old materialist method in his book as though he did not declare it to
      be wanting! As Kautsky points out, Bernstein, at times, even applies
      this method with the most impermissible crudity and one sidedness! Further
      on Bernstein’s accusations are levelled against dialectics which, he
      alleges, lead to arbitrary constructions, etc., etc. Bernstein repeats
      these phrases (that
have already managed to disgust also the Russian readers) without making
      the slightest attempt to show what is in correct in dialectics, whether
      Hegel or Marx and Engels are guilty of methodological errors (and
      precisely what errors). The only means by which Bernstein tries to
      motivate and fortify his opinion is a reference to the
      “tendentiousness” of one of the concluding sections of
Capital
(on the historical tendency of capitalist
      accumulation). This charge has been worn threadbare: it was made by Eugen
      Dühring and Julius Wolf and many others in Germany, and it was made
      (we add on our part) by Mr. Y. Zhukovsky in the seventies and by
      Mr. N. Mikhailovsky in the nineties—by the very same
      Mr. Mikhailovsky who had once accused Mr. Y. Zhukovsky of acrobatics for
      making the selfsame charge. And what
proof
does Bernstein offer
      in confirmation of this worn-out nonsense?  Only the following: Marx began
      his “investigation” with ready-made conclusions, since in 1867
Capital
drew the same conclusion that Marx had drawn as early as
      the forties. Such “proof” is tantamount to fraud, answers
      Kautsky, because Marx based his conclusions on two investigations and not
      on one, as he points out very definitely in the introduction to
Zur
      Kritik
(see Russian translation:
A Critique 01 Some of the
      Propositions of Political

	Economy
[2]
).
      Marx made his first
      investigation in the forties, after leaving the Editorial Board of the
Rheinische

	Zeitung
.
[3]
Marx left the newspaper because he had to treat of material interests and
      he realised that he was not sufficiently prepared for this. From the arena
      of public life, wrote Marx about himself, I withdrew into the study. And
      so (stresses Kautsky, hinting at Bernstein), Marx had doubts regarding the
      correctness of his judgement of material interests, regarding the
      correctness of the dominant views on this subject at that time, but he did
      not think his doubts to be important enough to write a whole book and
      Inform the world about them. On the contrary, Marx set out to study in
      order to advance from doubtings of the old views to positive new ideas. He
      began to study French social theories and English political economy. He
      came into close contact with Engels, who was at that time making a
      detailed study of the actual state of the economy in England. The result
      of this joint work, this
first
inquiry, was the
well-known conclusions which the two writers expounded very definitely
      towards the end of the

      forties.
[4]
Marx moved to London in 1850, and the favourable conditions there for
      research determined him “to begin afresh
from the very
      beginning
and to work through the new material critically”
      (
A Critique of Some of the Propositions
, 1st edition,

p. xi.
[5]
Our italics). The fruit of this
second
inquiry, lasting many long
      years, were the works:
Zur Kritik
(1859) and
Das Kapital
(1867). The conclusion drawn in
Capital
coincides with the former
      conclusion drawn in the forties because the second inquiry confirmed the
      results of the first. “My views, however they may be judged ... are
      the result of conscientious investigation lasting many years,” wrote Marx
      in 1859 (
ibid
.,

p. xii).
[6]
Does this, asks Kautsky, resemble conclusions found ready-made long before
      the investigation?
From
the question of dialectics Kautsky goes over to the question of
      value. Bernstein says that Marx’s theory is unfinished, that it leaves
      many problems “that are by no means fully explained.” Kautsky does
      not think of refuting this: Marx’s theory is not the last word in science,
      he says. History brings new facts and new methods of investigation that
      require the further development of the theory. if Bernstein had made an
      attempt to utilise new facts and new methods of inquiry for the further
      development of the theory, everybody would have been grateful to him. But
      Bernstein does not dream of doing that; he confines himself to cheap
      attacks on Marx’s disciples and to extremely vague, purely eclectic
      remarks, such as: the Gossen-Jevons-Böhm theory of marginal utility
      is no less just than Marx’s theory of labour-value. Both theories retain
      their significance for different purposes, says Bernstein, because
      Böhm-Bawerk has as much right,
a priori
, to abstract from
      the property of commodities that they are produced by labour, as Marx has
      to abstract from the property that they are use-values. Kautsky points out
      that it is utterly absurd to regard two opposite, mutually exclusive
      theories suitable for different purposes (and, furthermore, Bernstein does
      not say for what purposes either of the two theories is suit able). It is
      by no means a question as to which property of commodities we are,
a
      priori (von Hause aus
), entitled to abstract from; the question is
      how to explain the principal
phenomena of present-day society, based on the
exchange
of
      products, how to explain the value of commodities, the function of money,
      etc. Even if Marx’s theory may leave a number of still unexplained
      problems, Bernstein’s theory of value is a totally unexplained
      problem. Bernstein further quotes Buch, who constructed the concept of the
      maximum density” of labour; but Bernstein does not give a complete
      exposition of Buch’s views or make a definite statement of his own opinion
      on that question. Buch, it seems, gets entangled in contradictions by
      making value depend on wages and wages depend on value. Bernstein senses
      the eclecticism of his statements on value and tries to defend eclecticism
      in general. He calls it “the revolt of the sober intellect against
      the tendency inherent in every dogma to constrict thought within narrow
      confines.” If Bern stein were to recall the history of thought, retorts
      Kautsky, he would see that the great rebels against the constriction of
      thought within narrow confines were never eclectics, that what has always
      characterised them has been the striving for the unity, for the integrity
      of ideas. The eclectic is too timid to dare revolt. If, indeed, I click my
      heels politely to Marx and at the same time click my heels politely to
      Böhm-Bawerk, that is still a long way from revolt! Let anyone name
      even one eclectic in the republic of thought, says Kautsky, who has proved
      worthy of the name of rebel!
Passing
from the method to the results of its application, Kautsky deals
      with the so-called
Zusammenbruchstheorie
, the theory of collapse,
      of the sudden crash of West-European capitalism, a crash that Marx
      allegedly believed to be inevitable and connected with a gigantic economic
      crisis. Kautsky says and proves that Marx and Engels never propounded a
      special
Zusammenbruchstheorie
, that they did not connect a
Zusammenbruch
necessarily with an economic crisis. This is a
      distortion chargeable to their opponents who expound Marx’s theory
      one-sidedly, tearing out of con text odd passages from different writings
      in order thus triumphantly to refute the “one-sidedness” and
      “crudeness” of the theory. Actually Marx and Engels considered
      the transformation of West-European economic relations to be dependent on
      the maturity and strength of the classes
brought to the fore by modern European history. Bernstein tries to assert
      that this is not the theory of Marx, but Kautsky’s interpretation and
      extension of it. Kautsky, however, with precise quotations from Marx’s
      writings of the forties and sixties, as well as by means of an analysis of
      the basic ideas of Marxism, has completely refuted this truly pettifogging
      trickery of the Bernstein who so blatantly accused Marx’s disciples of
      “apologetics and pettifoggery.” This part of Kautsky’s book Is
      particularly interesting, the more so, since some Russian writers (e.g.,
      Mr. Bulgakov in the magazine
Nachalo
) have been In a hurry to
      repeat the distortion of Marx’s theory which Bernstein offered in the
      guise of “criticism” (as does Mr. Prokopovich in his
Working-Class Movement in the West
, St. Petersburg, 1899).
Kautsky
analyses the basic tendencies of contemporary economic development
      in particularly great detail in order to refute Bernstein’s opinion that
      this development is not proceeding in the direction indicated by Marx. It
      stands to reason that we cannot present here a detailed exposition of the
      chapter “Large- and Small-Scale Production” and of other
      chapters of Kautsky’s book which are devoted to a political-economic
      analysis and contain extensive numerical data, but shall have to confine
      ourselves to a brief mention of their contents. Kautsky emphasises the
      point that the question is one of the direction, by and large, of
      development and by no means of particularities and superficial
      manifestations, which
no
theory can take into account in all
      their great variety. (Marx reminds the reader of this simple but oft for
      gotten truth in the relevant chapters of
Capital.
) By a detailed
      analysis of the data provided by the German industrial censuses of 1882
      and 1895 Kautsky shows that they are a brilliant confirmation of Marx’s
      theory and have placed beyond all doubt the process of the concentration
      of capital and the elimination of small-scale production. In 1896
      Bernstein (when he himself still belonged to the guild of apologists and
      pettifoggers. says Kautsky ironically) most emphatically recognised this
      fact, but now he is excessive in his exaggeration of the strength and
      importance of small-scale production. Thus, Bernstein estimates the number
      of enterprises employing fewer than 20 workers at several hundred thou
      sand, “apparently adding in his pessimistic zeal an extra
nought to the figure,” since there are only 49,000 such enterprises in
      Germany. Further, whom do the statistics not place among the petty
      entrepreneurs—cabmen, messengers, gravediggers, fruit hawkers,
      seamstresses (even though they may work at home for a capitalist), etc.,
      etc.!  Here let us note a remark of Kautsky’s that is particularly
      important from the theoretical standpoint—that petty commercial and
      industrial enterprises (such as those mentioned above) in capitalist
      society are often merely one of the forms of relative over-population;
      ruined petty producers, workers unable to find employment turn (sometimes
      temporarily) into petty traders and hawkers, or rent out rooms or beds
      (also “enterprises,” which are registered by statistics equally with
      all other types of enterprise!), etc. The fact that these employments are
      overcrowded does not by any means indicate the viability of petty
      production but rather the growth of poverty in capitalist
      society. Bernstein, however, emphasises and exaggerates the importance of
      the petty “industrial producers” when to do so seems to him to
      serve his advantage (on the question of large- and small-scale
      production), but keeps silent about them when he finds it to his
      disadvantage (on the question of the growth of poverty).
Bernstein
repeats the argument, long known to the Russian public as well,
      that joint-stock companies “permit” the fragmentation of
      capital and “make unnecessary” its concentration, and he cites
      some figures (cf.
Zhizn
, No. 3 for 1899) on the number of small
      shares. Kautsky replies that these figures prove exactly nothing, since
      small shares in any companies might belong to big capitalists (as even
      Bernstein must admit). Bernstein does not adduce any evidence, nor can he,
      to prove that joint-stock companies
increase
the number of
      property-owners, for the joint-stock companies actually serve to
      expropriate the gullible men of small means for the benefit of big
      capitalists and speculators. The growth in the number of shares merely
      shows that wealth has a tendency to take on the form of shares; but this
      growth tells us nothing about the distribution of wealth. In general,
      Bernstein’s attitude to the question of an increase in the number of
      wealthy people, the number of property-owners, is an astonishingly thought
      less one, which has not prevented his bourgeois followers
from praising precisely this part of his book and announcing that it is
      based on “a tremendous amount of numerical data.” And Bernstein
      proved himself skilful enough, says Kautsky ironically, to compress this
      tremendous amount of data into two pages! He confuses property-owners with
      capitalists, although no one has denied an increase in the number of the
      latter. In analysing income-tax data, he ignores their fiscal character,
      and their confusion of income from property with income in the form of
      salary, etc. He compares data for different times that have been collected
      by different methods (on Prussia, for example) and are, therefore, not
      comparable. He even goes so far as to borrow data on the growth of
      property-owners in England (printing these figures in heavy type, as his
      trump card) from an article in some sensational newspaper that was singing
      the praises of Queen Victoria’s jubilee and whose handling of statistics
      was the
nec plus ultra
of light-mindedness! The source of this in
      formation is unknown and, indeed, such information cannot be obtained on
      the basis of data on the English income tax, since these do not permit one
      to determine the number of tax-payers and the total income of each
      tax-payer. Kautsky adduces data from Kolb’s book on the English income tax
      from 1812 to 1847 and shows that they, in exactly the same way as
      Bernstein’s newspaper data, indicate an (apparent) increase in the number
      of property-owners—and that, in a period of the most terrible
      increase in the most horrible poverty of the people in England! A detailed
      analysis of Bernstein’s data led Kautsky to the conclusion that Bernstein
      had not. quoted a single figure that actually proved a growth in the
      number of property-owners.
Bernstein
tried to give this phenomenon a theoretical grounding: the
      capitalists, he said, cannot themselves consume the entire surplus-value
      that increases to such a colossal extent; this means that the number of
      property-owners that consume it must grow. It is not very difficult for
      Kautsky to refute this grotesque argument that totally ignores Marx’s
      theory of realisation (expounded many times in Russian literature). It is
      particularly interesting that for his refutation Kautsky does not employ
      theoretical arguments alone, but offers concrete data attesting to the
      growth of luxury and lavish spending in the West-European countries;
to the influence of rapidly changing fashions, which greatly intensify
      this process; to mass unemployment; to the tremendous increase in the
      “productive consumption” of surplus-value, i.e., the
      investment of capital in new enterprises, especially the investment of
      European capital in the railways and other enterprises of Russia, Asia,
      and Africa.
Bernstein
declares that everyone has abandoned Marx’s “theory of
      misery” or “theory of impoverishment.” Kautsky demonstrates
      that this is again a distorted exaggeration on the part of the opponents
      of Marx, since Marx propounded no such theory. He spoke of the growth of
      poverty, degradation, etc., indicating at the same time the counteracting
      tendency and the real social forces that alone could give rise to this
      tendency. Marx’s words on the growth of poverty are fully justified by
      reality: first, we actually see that capitalism has a tendency to engender
      and increase poverty, which acquires tremendous proportions when the
      above-mentioned counteracting tendency is absent. Secondly, poverty grows,
      not in the physical but in the social sense, i.e., in the sense of the
      disparity between the increasing level of consumption by the bourgeoisie
      and consumption by society as a who]e, and the level of the living
      standards of the working people. Bernstein waxes ironical over such a
      conception of “poverty,” saying that this is a Pickwickian
      conception. In reply Kautsky shows that people like Lassalle, Rodbertus,
      and Engels have made very definite statements to the effect that poverty
      must be understood in its social, as well as in its physical, sense. As
      you see—he parries Bernstein’s irony—it is not such a bad
      company that gathers at the “Pickwick Club”! Thirdly and lastly, the
      passage on increasing impoverishment remains perfectly true in respect of
      the “border regions” of capitalism, the border regions being
      understood both in the geographical sense (countries in which capitalism
      is only beginning to penetrate and frequently not only gives rise to
      physical poverty but to the outright starvation of the masses) and in the
      political-economic sense (handicraft industries and, in general, those
      branches of economy in which backward methods of production are still
      retained).
The
chapter on the “new middle estate” is likewise extremely
interesting and, for us Russians, particularly instructive. If Bernstein
      had
merely
wanted to say that in place of the declining petty
      producers a new middle estate, the intelligentsia, is appearing, he would
      be perfectly correct, says Kautsky, pointing out that he himself noted the
      importance of this phenomenon several years before. In all spheres of
      people’s labour, capitalism increases the number of
office and
      professional workers
with particular rapidity and makes a growing
      demand for intellectuals. The latter occupy a special position among the
      other classes, attaching themselves partly to the bourgeoisie by their
      connections, their outlooks, etc., and partly to the wage-workers as
      capitalism increasingly deprives the intellectual of his independent
      position, converts him into a hired worker and threatens to lower his
      living standard. The transitory, unstable, contradictory position of that
      stratum of society now under discussion is reflected in the particularly
      widespread diffusion in its midst of hybrid, eclectic views, a farrago of
      contrasting principles and ideas, an urge to rise verbally to the higher
      spheres and to conceal the conflicts between the historical groups of the
      population with phrases—all of which Marx lashed with his sarcasm
      half a century ago.
In
the chapter on the theory of crises Kautsky shows that Marx did not at
      all postulate a “theory” of the ten- year cycle of industrial
      crises, but merely stated a fact. The change in this cycle in recent times
      has been noted by Engels himself. It is said that cartels of
      industrialists can counteract crises by limiting and regulating
      production. But America is a land of cartels; yet instead of a limitation
      we see there a tremendous growth of production. Further, the cartels limit
      production for the home market but expand it for the foreign market,
      selling their goods abroad at a loss and extracting monopoly prices from
      consumers in their own country. This system is inevitable under
      protectionism and there are no grounds for anticipating a change from
      protectionism to Free Trade. The cartels close small factories,
      concentrate and monopolise production, introduce improvements, and in this
      way greatly worsen the condition of the producers. Bernstein is of the
      opinion that the speculation which gives rise to crises weakens as the
      conditions on the world market change from unforeseeable to foreseeable
and known conditions; but he forgets that it is the
      “unforeseeable” conditions in the new countries that give a
      tremendous impetus to speculation in the old countries. Using statistical
      data, Kautsky shows the growth of speculation in precisely the last few
      years, as well as the growth in the symptoms indicating a crisis in the
      not very distant future.
With
regard to the remaining part of Kautsky’s book, we must mention his
      analysis of the muddle people get into through confusing (as does
      Mr. S. Prokopovich, op. cit.) the economic strength of certain groups with
      their economic organisations. We must mention Kautsky’s statement to the
      effect that Bernstein ascribes to purely temporary conditions of a given
      historical situation the dignity of a general law— his refutation of
      Bernstein’s incorrect views on the essence of democracy; and his
      explanation of Bernstein’s statistical error, in comparing the number of
      industrial workers in Germany with the number of voters and overlooking
      the mere trifle that not all the workers in Germany (but only males over
      the age of 25) enjoy the franchise and that not all participate in the
      elections. We can only strongly recommend to the reader who is interested
      in the question of the significance of Bernstein’s book and in the polemic
      around it to turn to the German literature and under no circumstances to
      believe the biased and one-sided reviews by the proponents of eclecticism
      that dominate in Russian literature. We have heard that part of Kautsky’s
      book here under review will probably be translated into Russian. This is
      very desirable, but is no substitute for an acquaintanceship with the
      original.
Notes
[1]
Karl Kautsky.
Bernstein and the Social-Democratic Programme.
	  A Counter-Critique
.—
Ed
.
[2]
Zur Kritik
— Marx’s
Zur Kritik der politisehen
	Ökonomie
(
A Contribution to the Critique of Political
	Economy
). Lenin’s references are to the Russian edition of the book
	published in 1896.
[3]
Rheinische Zeitung für Politik, Handel und Gewerb (Rhenish
	Gazette for Politics, Trade, and Manufacture
)—a daily
	newspaper that appeared in Cologne from January 1, 1842, to March 31,
	1843. The paper was founded by representatives of Rhineland bourgeois
	who were opposed to Prussian absolutism. Certain Left Hegelians were
	invited to contribute to the paper. Marx became a collaborator in April
	1842 and was one of the paper’s editors from October of that year. The
Rheinische Zeitung
also published a series of articles by
	Frederick Engels. Under Marx the paper began to take on a more definite
	revolutionary-democratic character. The course taken by the
Rheinische Zeitung
, and the great popularity it achieved in
	Germany, caused alarm and discontent in government circles and led to
	the vicious persecution of the paper by the reactionary press. On
	January 19, 1843, the Prussian Government issued an order to close down
	the
Rheinische Zeitung
from April 1, 1843, and to establish a
	particularly strict, double censorship for the remaining period of its
	existence.
[4]
Lenin refers to the
Manifesto of the Communist Party
.
[5]
Karl Marx, “Preface to
A Contribution to the Critique of
	Political Economy”
(Marx and Engels,
Selected Works
,
	Vol. I, Moscow, 1958, p. 365).
[6]
See Note 78.
Works
		  Index
|
Volume 4
|
Collected Works
|
L.I.A. Index
<
		  backward
forward >

----------------------------------------

V. I.
Lenin
A Draft of Our Party Programme
[1]
Written:
Written at the end of 1899
Published:
First published in 1924 in the first edition of V. I. Lenin’s
Collected Works
, Vol. 1.

      Published according to the manuscript.
Source:
Lenin
	  Collected Works
,

      Progress Publishers,
1964
,

      Moscow,
Volume 4
,

      pages
227-254
.
Translated:
Transcription\Markup:
R. Cymbala
and
D. Walters
Public Domain:
Lenin Internet Archive

      (2003).
You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.
The
thing to begin with, most likely, is the question of whether there is
      really a pressing need for a programme of the Russian
      Social-Democrats. From comrades active in Russia we have heard the opinion
      expressed that at this particular moment there is no special need to draw
      up a programme; that the urgent question is one of developing and
      strengthening local organisations, of placing agitation and the delivery
      of literature on a more sound footing; that it would be better to postpone
      the elaboration of a programme until such time as when the movement stands
      on firmer ground; that a programme might, at the moment, turn out to be
      unfounded.
We
do not share this opinion. It goes without saying that “every step of
      real movement is more important than a dozen

      programmes,”
[2]
as Karl Marx said. But neither Marx nor any other theoretician or
      practical worker in the Social-Democratic movement has ever denied the
      tremendous importance of a programme for the consolidation and consistent
      activity of a political party. The Russian Social-Democrats have just got
      over the period of the most bitter polemics with socialists of other
      trends and with non-socialists who were unwilling to understand Russian
      Social-Democracy; they have also got over the initial stages of the
      movement during which the work was carried on piecemeal by small local
      organisations. The need for unity, for the establishment of common
      literature, for the appearance of Russian workers’ newspapers arises out
      of the real situation, and the foundation in the spring of 1898 of the
      Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, which announced its intention of
      elaborating a Party programme in the near future, showed clearly that the
      demand for a programme grew out of the needs of the
movement itself. At the present time the urgent question of our movement
      is no longer that of developing the former scattered “amateur”
      activities, but of uniting—of organisation. This is a step for which
      a programme is a necessity. The programme must formulate our basic views;
      precisely establish our immediate political tasks; point out the immediate
      demands that must show the area of agitational activity; give unity to the
      agitational work, expand and deepen it, thus raising it from fragmentary
      partial agitation for petty, isolated demands to the status of agitation
      for the sum total of Social-Democratic demands. Today, when
      Social-Democratic activity has aroused a fairly wide circle of social 1st
      intellectuals and class-conscious workers, it is urgently necessary to
      strengthen connections between them by a programme and in this way give
      all of them a sound basis for further, more extensive, activity. Lastly, a
      programme is urgently necessary because Russian public opinion is very
      often most profoundly mistaken in respect of the real tasks and methods of
      action of the Russian Social-Democrats: these mistaken views in some cases
      grow naturally in the morass of political putrefaction that is our real
      life, in others they are artificially nurtured by the opponents of
      Social-Democracy. In any case, this is a fact that has to be taken into
      account. The working-class movement, merging with socialism and with the
      political struggle, must establish a party that will have to dispel all
      these misunderstandings, if it is to stand at the head of all the
      democratic elements in Russian society. The objection may be raised,
      further, that the present moment is inopportune for the elaboration of a
      programme because there are differences of opinion that give rise to
      polemics among the Social-Democrats themselves. I believe the contrary to
      be true—this is another argument
in favour
of the necessity
      for a programme. On the one hand, since the polemic has begun, it is to be
      hoped that in the discussion of the draft programme all views and all
      shades of views will be afforded expression, that the discussion will be
      comprehensive. The polemic indicates that the Russian Social-Democrats are
      showing a revived interest in extensive questions pertaining to the aims
      of our movement and to its immediate tasks and tactics; precisely such a
      revival is essential to a discussion of the draft programme.
On the other hand, if the polemic is not to be fruitless, if it is not to
      degenerate into personal rivalry, if it is not to lead to a confusion of
      views, to a confounding of enemies and friends, it is absolutely essential
      that the question of the programme be introduced into the polemic. The
      polemic will be of benefit only if it makes clear in what the differences
      actually consist,
how profound they are
, whether they are
      differences of substance or differences on partial questions, whether or
      not these differences interfere with common work in the ranks of one and
      the same party.
Only
the introduction of the programme question
      into the polemic, only a definite statement by the two polemising parties
      on their
programmatic
views, can provide an answer to all these
      questions, questions that insistently demand an answer. The elaboration of
      a common programme for the Party should not, of course, put an end to all
      polemics; it will firmly establish those basic views on the character, the
      aims, and the tasks of our movement which must serve as the banner of a
      fighting party, a party that remains consolidated and united despite
      partial differences of opinion among its members on partial questions.
And
now, to the matter.
When
a programme of the Russian Social-Democrats is spoken of, all eyes
      naturally turn towards the members of the Emancipation of Labour group who
      founded Russian Social-Democracy and have done so much for its theoretical
      and practical development. Our older comrades were not slow in responding
      to the demands of the Russian Social-Democratic movement. Almost at the
      very same time— in the spring of 1898—when preparations were
      being made for the congress of Russian Social-Democrats which laid the
      foundations for the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, P. B. Axelrod
      published his pamphlet,
Present Tasks and Tactics of the Russian
      Social-Democrats
(Geneva, 1898; the foreword being dated March 1898),
      and reprinted as an appendix to it “A Draft Programme of the Russian
      Social-Democrats,” published by the Emancipation of Labour group as early
      as 1885.
We
shall begin with a discussion of this draft. Despite the fact that it
      was published almost 15 years ago, it is our opinion that, by and large,
      it adequately serves its
purpose and is on the level of present-day Social-Democratic theory. The
      draft designates precisely that class which alone, in Russia as in other
      countries, is capable of being an in dependent fighter for
      socialism—the working class, the “industrial
      proletariat”; it states the aim which this class must set
      itself—“the conversion of all means and objects of production into
      social property,” “the abolition of commodity production” and
      “its replacement by a new system of social production”—“the
      communist revolution”; it indicates the “inevitable
      preliminary condition” for “the reconstruction of social
      relations”—“the seizure of political power by the working
      class”; it affirms the international solidarity of the proletariat
      and the necessity for an “element of variety in the programmes of
      the Social-Democrats of different states in accordance with the social
      conditions in each of them taken separately”; it points to the
      specific feature of Russia “where the masses of working people
      suffer under the double yoke of developing capitalism and moribund
      patriarchal economy”; it shows the connection between the Russian
      revolutionary movement and the process of the creation (by the forces of
      developing capitalism) of “a new class, the industrial
      proletariat—the most responsive,mobile,and developed”; it
      indicates the necessity for the formation of “a revolutionary
      working-class party” and specifies “its first political
      task”—“the overthrow of absolutism”; it shows the “means
      of political struggle” and formulates its basic demands.
All
these elements are, in our opinion, absolutely essential to a
      programme of the Social-Democratic working-class party; they all enunciate
      theses that have, until now, been again and again confirmed both in the
      development of socialist theory and in the development of the
      working-class movement of all countries, specifically, in the development
      of Russian social thought and the Russian working-class movement. In view
      of this, the Russian Social-Democrats can and should, in our opinion, make
      the draft of the Emancipation of Labour group—a draft requiring
      editorial changes, corrections, and additions only in respect of
      details— the basis of the programme of the Russian Social-Democratic
      working-class party.
Let
us try to note which of these changes of detail we deem advisable and in
      regard to which it would be desirable
to have an exchange of opinions among all Russian Social-Democrats and
      class-conscious workers.
In
the first place, there must, of course, be some slight changes in the
      structural character of the programme; in 1885 it was the programme of a
      group of revolutionaries abroad who had proved able to define the only
      path of development for the movement that offered success, but who, at
      that time, still did not see before them anything like an extensive and
      independent working-class movement in Russia. In 1900 it has become a
      question of a programme for a working-class party founded by a large
      number of Russian Social-Democratic organisations. In addition to the
      editorial changes that are in consequence essential (and that need not be
      dealt with in detail, since they are self-evident), this difference makes
      it necessary to bring into the fore ground and emphasise more strongly the
      process of economic development that is engendering the material and
      spiritual conditions for the Social-Democratic working-class movement, and
      the class struggle of the proletariat which the Social-Democratic Party
      sets itself the aim of organising. The cardinal point of the programme
      should be the characterisation of the basic features of the present-day
      economic system of Russia and its development (cf. in the programme of the
      Emancipation of Labour group: “Capitalism has achieved tremendous
      success in Russia since the abolition of serfdom. The old system of
      natural economy is giving way to commodity production...”). This should be
      followed by an outline of the fundamental tendency of capitalism—the
      splitting of the people into a bourgeoisie and a proletariat, the growth
      of “the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation,

      exploitation.”
[3]
These famous words of Marx are repeated in the second paragraph of the
      Erfurt Programme of the German Social-Democratic

      Party,
[4]
and the critics that are grouped about Bernstein have recently made
      particularly violent attacks precisely against this point, repeating the
      old objections raised by bourgeois liberals and social-politicians against
      the “theory of impoverishment.” In our opinion the polemic that has
      raged round this question has demonstrated the
utter
      groundlessness
of such “criticism.” Bernstein himself admitted
      that the above words of Marx were true as a characterisation of the
tendency
of
capitalism—a tendency that becomes a reality in the absence of the
      class struggle of the proletariat against it, in the absence of labour
      protection laws achieved by the working class. It is precisely In Russia
      today that we see the above tendency manifesting its effect with
      tremendous force on the peasantry and the workers. Further, Kautsky has
      shown that these words on the growth of “the mass of misery, etc.,”
      are true in the sense, not only of characterising a tendency, but of
      indicating the growth of “social poverty,” i.e., the growth of the
      disparity between the condition of the proletariat and the living standard
      of the bourgeoisie—the standard of social consumption that continues
      to rise parallel with the gigantic growth in the productivity of
      labour. Lastly, these words are true also in the sense that in “the
      border regions” of capitalism (i.e., those countries and those
      branches of the national economy in which capitalism is only just emerging
      and clashing with pre-capitalist conditions) the growth of
      poverty—not only “social,” but also the most horrible physical
      poverty, to the extent of starvation and death from
      starvation—assumes a mass scale. Everybody knows that this is ten
      times mere applicable to Russia than to any other European country. And
      so, the words about the growth of “the mass of misery, oppression,
      slavery, degradation, exploitation” must, in our opinion,
      imperatively be included in our

      programme— first,
because they
      faithfully describe the basic and essential features of capitalism, they
      characterise precisely the process that unrolls before our eyes and that
      is one of the chief reasons for the emergence of the working-class
      movement and socialism in Russia; secondly, because these words provide a
      fund of material for agitation, because they summarise a whole series of
      phenomena that most oppress the masses of the workers, but, at the same
      time, most arouse their indignation (unemployment, low wages, under
      nourishment, famine, the Draconian discipline of capital, prostitution,
      the growth in the number of domestics, etc., etc.); and, thirdly, because
      by this precise characterisation of the ruinous effect of capitalism and
      of the necessary, inevitable indignation of the workers we draw a line
      between ourselves and the indecisive elements who “sympathise” with
      the proletariat and demand “reforms” for its
benefit, while trying to occupy the “golden mean” between the
      proletariat and the bourgeoisie, between the autocratic government and the
      revolutionaries. It is particularly necessary today to dissociate
      ourselves from such people, if we are to strive for a united and
      consolidated working-class party that conducts a determined and unswerving
      struggle for political liberty and socialism.
Here
a few words are in order on our attitude to the Erfurt
      Programme. From what has been said above it is clear to everyone that we
      consider it necessary to make changes in the draft of the Emancipation of
      Labour group that will bring the programme of the Russian Social-Democrats
      closer to that of the German. We are not in the least afraid to say that
      we want to imitate the Erfurt Programme: there is nothing bad in imitating
      what is good, and precisely to day, when we so often hear opportunist and
      equivocal criticism of that programme, we consider it our duty to speak
      openly in its favour. Imitating, however, must under no circumstances be
      simply copying. Imitation and borrowing are quite legitimate insofar as in
      Russia we see the same
basic
processes of the development of
      capitalism, the same
basic
tasks for the socialists and the
      working class; but they must not, under any circumstances, lead to our
      forgetting the
specific features
of Russia which must find
full expression
in the specific features of our
      programme. Running ahead somewhat, let us say here that among these
      specific features are, first, our political tasks and means of struggle;
      and, secondly, our struggle against all remnants of the patriarchal,
      pre-capitalist regime and the specific posing of the
peasant
question arising out of that struggle.
Having
made this necessary reservation, let us continue. The statement on
      the growth of “the mass of misery” must be followed by a
      characterisation of the
class struggle
of the proletariat—a
      declaration of the aim of this struggle (the conversion of all means of
      production into social property and the replacement of capitalist
      production by socialist production), a declaration of the international
      character of the working-class movement, a declaration of the
political
character of the class struggle and its
immediate
objective (the winning of political liberty). It is
      particularly necessary to recognise the struggle against the autocracy for
      political
liberties as the first political task of the working-class party; this
      task should, in our opinion, be explained by an exposition of the class
      nature of the present-day Russian autocracy and of the need to overthrow
      it, not only in the interests of the working class, but also in the
      interests of social development as a whole. Such a description is
      essential both in regard to theory, because, from the standpoint of the
      basic ideas of Marxism, the interests of social development are higher
      than the interests of the proletariat—the interests of the
      working-class movement as a whole are higher than the interests of a
      separate section of the workers or of separate phases of the movement; and
      in regard to practice, the elucidation is essential because of the need to
      characterise the focal point to which all the variety of Social-Democratic
      activity—propaganda, agitation, and organisation—must be
      directed and round which it must be concentrated.
In addition
, we
      think a special paragraph of the programme should be devoted to the
      provision that the Social-Democratic working-class party set itself the
aim
of supporting every revolutionary movement against the
      autocracy and the struggle against all attempts on the part of the
      autocratic government to corrupt and befog the political consciousness of
      the people by means of bureaucratic guardianship and sham doles, by means
      of that demagogic policy which our German comrades have called the
“Peitsche und Zuckerbrot”
policy (whip and biscuit
      policy). The biscuit=the doles to those who, for the sake of partial and
      individual improvements in their material conditions, renounce their
      political demands and remain the humble slaves of police violence (hostels
      for students, etc., and for workers—one has only to recall the
      proclamations of Minister of Finance Witte at the time of the
      St. Petersburg strikes in 1896 and

      1897,
[5]
or the speeches in defence of the workers delivered by representatives of
      the Ministry of Internal Affairs at the commission on the promulgation of
      the law of June 2, 1897). The whip=the in creased persecution of those who,
      despite the doles, remain fighters for political liberty (the drafting of
      students into the

      army
[6]
;
      the circular of August 12, 1897, on the transportation of workers to
      Siberia; increased persecution of Social-Democracy, etc.). The biscuit is
      to decoy the weak, to bribe and corrupt them; the whip is to overawe and
      “render
harmless” honest and class-conscious fighters for the working-class
      cause and for the cause of the people. As long as the autocracy exists
      (and we must now in drawing up our programme take into account the
      existence of the autocracy, since its collapse would inevitably call forth
      such huge changes in political conditions that they would compel the
      working-class party to make essential changes in the formulation of its
      immediate political tasks)—as long as the autocracy exists, we must
      expect a continued renewal and increase of the government’s demagogic
      measures. Consequently, we must conduct against them a systematic
      struggle, exposing the falseness of the police benefactors of the people,
      showing the connection between government reforms and the struggle of the
      workers, teaching the proletariat to make use of every reform to
      strengthen its fighting position and extend and deepen the working-class
      movement. The point on the support for
all
fighters against the
      autocracy is necessary in the programme, because Russian Social-Democracy,
      indissolubly fused with the advanced elements of the Russian working
      class, must raise the
general-democratic
banner, in order to
      group about itself all sections and all elements capable of fighting for
      political liberty or at least of supporting that fight in some way or
      another.
Such
is our view on the demands that must be met by the section of our
      programme dealing with
principles
and on the basic postulates
      that must be expressed in it with the maximum precision and clarity. In
      our opinion the following should be deleted from the draft programme of
      the Emancipation of Labour group (from the part dealing with principles):
      1) statements on the form of peasant land tenure (we shall
      discuss the peasant question later); 2) statements on the causes of
      “instability,” etc., of the intelligentsia; 3) the point on the
      “abolition of the present system of political representation and its
      replacement by direct people’s legislation”; 4) the point on the
      “means of political struggle.” True, we do not see anything obsolete
      or erroneous in the last point, but, on the contrary, believe that the
      means of struggle should be precisely those indicated by the Emancipation
      of Labour group (agitation, revolutionary organisation, transition at
      “a suitable moment” to determined attack, not rejecting,
in principle
, even terror);
but we believe that the programme of a
working-class party
is no
      place for indications of the means of activity that were necessary in the
      programme of a group of revolutionaries abroad in 1885. The programme
      should leave the question of means open, allowing the choice of means to
      the militant organisations and to Party congresses that determine the
tactics
of the Party. Questions of tactics, however, can hardly
      be introduced into the programme (with the exception of the most important
      questions, questions of
principle
, such as our attitude to other
      fighters against the autocracy). Questions of tactics will be discussed by
      the Party newspaper as they arise and will be eventually decided at Party
      congresses. The same applies, in our opinion, to the question of
      terror. The Social-Democrats must imperatively under take the discussion
      of this question—of course, from the standpoint of tactics and not
      of principle—because the growth of the movement leads of its own
      accord, spontaneously, to more frequent cases of the killing of spies and
      to greater, more impassioned indignation in the ranks of the workers and
      socialists who see ever greater numbers of their comrades being tortured
      to death in solitary confinement and at places of exile. In order to leave
      nothing unsaid, we will make the reservation that, in our own personal
      opinion, terror is
not
advisable as a means of struggle at
the present moment
, that the Party (
as
a
party
)
      must renounce it (until there occurs a change of circumstances that might
      lead to a change of tactics) and concentrate
all its energy
on
      organisation and the regular delivery of literature. This is not the place
      to speak in greater detail on the question.
As
far as the issue of direct people’s legislation is concerned, it seems
      to us that at the present moment it should not be included in the
      programme. The victory of socialism must not be connected, in principle,
      with the
substitution
of direct people’s legislation for
      parliamentarism. This was proved, in our view, by the discussion on the
      Erfurt Programme and by Kautsky’s book on people’s legislation. Kautsky
      admits (on the basis of an historical and political analysis) that a
      certain benefit accrues from people’s legislation under the following
      conditions: 1) the absence of an antithesis between town and village or
      the preponderance of the towns, 2) the existence of highly developed
      political
parties; 3) “the absence of excessively centralised state power,
      independently opposed to people’s legislation.” In Russia we see
exactly the opposite
conditions, and the danger of
      “people’s legislation” degenerating into an imperialist
      “plebiscite” would be particularly great in our country. If
      Kautsky could say, in 1893, speaking of Germany and Austria, that
      “for us, East-Europeans, direct people’s legislation belongs to the
      sphere of the ‘state of the future,’” what is there to be said of Russia?
      We, therefore, believe that at present, when the autocracy is dominant in
      Russia, we should limit ourselves to the demand for a “democratic
      constitution” and prefer the first two points of the practical part
      of the programme of the Emancipation of Labour group to the first two
      points of the practical part of the “Erfurt Programme.”
Now
let us look at the practical part of the programme. This part
      consists, in our opinion, of three sections, in substance if not in
      arrangement: 1) the demands for general democratic reforms; 2) the demands
      for measures of protection for the workers; and 3) the demands for
      measures in the Interests of the peasants. There is hardly any need to
      make substantial changes in the “draft programme” of the
      Emancipation of Labour group as regards the first section, which demands:
      1) universal franchise; 2) salaries for deputies; 3) general, secular,
      free, and compulsory education, etc.; 4) inviolability of the person and
      domicile of citizens; 5) uncurtailed freedom of conscience, speech,
      assembly, etc. (here it should perhaps be added specifically: the right to
      strike); 6) freedom of movement and occupation (here it would probably be
      correct to add: “freedom of migration” and “the complete
      abolition of passports”); 7) full equality of all citizens, etc.; 8)
      replacement of the permanent army by the general arming of the people; 9)
      “the revision of our entire civil and criminal legislation, the
      abolition of social estate divisions and of punishments incompatible with
      the dignity of man.” Here it would be well to add: “complete
      equality of rights for men and women.” To this section should be added the
      demand for fiscal reforms formulated in the programme of the Emancipation
      of Labour group as one of the demands to “be put forward by the
      working-class party, basing itself on these fundamental political
      rights”—“the
abolition of the present system of taxation and the institution of a
      progressive income tax.” Lastly, there should also be here a demand for
      “the election of civil servants by the people; for every citizen to
      be granted the right to prosecute in court any government official without
      first having to make a complaint to superiors.”
In
the second section of the practical demands we find in the programme of
      the Emancipation of Labour group a general demand for “the
      legislative regulation of relations between workers (urban and rural) and
      employers, and the organisation of a relevant inspectorate with workers’
      representation.” We think that the
working-class party
should
      define the demands made on this point more thoroughly and in greater
      detail; the party should demand:

      1) an eight-hour working day; 2) prohibition of night-work and prohibition
      of the employment of children under 14 years of age; 3) uninterrupted rest
      periods, for every worker, of no less than 36 hours a week; 4) extension
      of factory legislation and the Factory Inspectorate to all branches of
      industry and agriculture, to government factories, to artisan
      establishments, and to handicraftsmen working at home; election, by the
      workers, of assistant inspectors having the same rights as the inspectors;
      5) establishment of factory and rural courts for all branches of industry
      and agriculture, with judges elected from the employers and the workers in
      equal numbers; 6) unconditional prohibition everywhere of payment in kind;
      7) legislation fixing the responsibility of factory owners for all
      accidents and maiming of workers, both industrial and agricultural; 8)
      legislation fixing payment of wages at least once a week in all cases of
      the hire of workers of all kinds; 9) repeal of all laws violating the
      equality of employers and employees (for example, the laws making factory
      and farm workers criminally responsible for leaving their work, the laws
      giving employers greater freedom to cancel hiring agreements than their
      employees, etc.). (It goes without saying that we are only outlining
      desirable demands without giving them the final formulation required for
      the draft.) This section of the programme must (in conjunction with the
      preceding section) provide the basic, guiding principles for agitation,
      without in any way, of course, hindering agitators in this or that
      locality, branch
of production, factory, etc., from putting forward demands in a somewhat
      modified form, demands that are more concrete or more specific. In drawing
      up this section of the programme, we should strive, therefore, to avoid
      two extremes— on the one hand, we must not omit any one of the main,
      basic demands that hold great significance for the
entire
working
      class; on the other, we must not go into minute particulars with which it
      would hardly be rational to load the programme.
The
demand for “state assistance for producers’ associations”
      in the programme of the Emancipation of Labour group should, in our
      opinion, be completely eliminated. The experience of other countries, as
      well as theoretical considerations, and the specific features of Russian
      life (the tendency of the bourgeois liberals and the police government to
      flirt with “artels” and with “the patronage ... of
      people’s industry,” etc.)—all this should counsel against our
      putting forward this demand. (Fifteen years ago, of course, matters were
      quite different in many respects;
then
it was quite natural for
      Social-Democrats to include such a demand in their programme.)
There
remains the third and last section of the practical part of the
      programme—the demands related to the peas ant question. In the
      programme of the Emancipation of Labour group we find only one demand
      pertaining to this question—the demand for a “radical revision
      of our agrarian relations, i.e., a revision of the conditions of land
      redemption and the allotment of the land to the village communes; the
      granting of the right to refuse an allotment and to leave the village
      commune to those peasants who find it convenient to do so, etc.”
It
seems to me that the basic idea here expressed is perfectly correct and
      that the Social-Democratic working-class party should, in point of fact,
      include a relevant demand in its programme (I say “a relevant
      demand” because I think certain amendments are desirable).
I
understand this problem in the following way. The peasant question in
      Russia differs substantially from the peasant question in the West, the
sole
difference being that in the West the question is almost
      exclusively one of a peasant in a capitalist, bourgeois society, whereas
      in Russia
it is one of a peasant who suffers no less (if not more) from
pre-capitalist
institutions and relations, from the
survivals
      of serfdom.
The role of the peasantry as a class that provides fighters
      against the autocracy and against the survivals of serfdom is by now
      played out in the West, but not yet in Russia. In the West the industrial
      proletariat has long since become completely alienated from the
      countryside; this alienation has been made final by relevant legal
      institutions. In Russia “the industrial proletariat, both by its
      composition and by the conditions of its existence, is to a very great ex
      tent still connected with the countryside” (P. B. Axelrod, op. cit.,
      p. 11). True enough, the differentiation of the peasantry into a petty
      bourgeoisie and into wage-workers is proceeding with great power and
      astounding rapidity in Russia, but it is a process that has not yet come
      to an end, and—what is most important—this process is still
      evolving within the framework of the old institutions of serfdom that
      fetter all the peasants with the heavy chains of collective liability and
      the tax-assessed community. The Russian Social-Democrat, therefore, even
      if he (like the writer of these lines) belongs to the determined opponents
      of the protection or support of small proprietorship or small agricultural
      economy in capitalist society, i.e., even if, on the agrarian question, he
      (like the writer of these lines) is on the side of those Marxists whom the
      bourgeois and opportunists of all stripes love to deride as
      “dogmatists” and “orthodox”—the Russian
      Social-Democrat can and must, without betraying his convictions in the
      slightest, but, rather, because of those convictions, insist that the
      working-class party should in scribe on its banner
support
for
      the peasantry (
not by any means
as a class of small proprietors
      or small farmers),
insofar as the peasantry is capable of a
      revolutionary struggle against the survivals of serfdom in general and
      against the autocracy in particular.
Do not all of us
      Social-Democrats declare that we are ready to support even the big
      bourgeoisie
insofar as it is capable
of a
revolutionary
struggle against the above manifestations—how then can we refuse to
      support the petty-bourgeois class, many millions strong, that is
      gradually, step by step, merging with the proletariat? If support for the
      liberal demands of the big bourgeoisie does not mean support of the big
      bourgeoisie, then support for the democratic
demands of the petty bourgeoisie certainly does not mean support of the
      petty bourgeoisie; on the contrary, it is precisely this development which
      political liberty will make possible in Russia that will, with particular
      force, lead to the destruction of small economy under the blows of
      capital. I do not think there will be any arguments among the Social-
      Democrats on this point. The question, therefore, is: 1) how to elaborate
      demands in such a way that they
do not degenerate
into support of
      small property-owners in a capitalist society? and 2) is our peasantry
      capable, at least in part, of a
revolutionary
struggle against
      the remnants of serfdom and against absolutism?
Let
us begin with the second question. It is doubtful whether anyone will
      deny the existence of revolutionary elements among the Russian
      peasantry. In the post-Reform period, too, we know, there have been
      peasant revolts against the landlords, their stewards, and the government
      officials who support them. Well known are the agrarian killings, revolts,
      etc. Well known is the growing indignation of the peasantry (in whom even
      pitiful fragments of education have already begun to arouse a sense of
      human dignity) against the savage lawlessness of the gang of aristocratic
      wastrels that has been let loose against the peasantry under the title of
      Rural

      Superintendents.
[7]
Well known is the fact that famines of
      growing frequency involve millions of people who cannot remain passive
      spectators of such “food difficulties.” Well known is the fact of
      the growth of religious sects and rationalism among the peasantry;
      political protests in religious guise are common to all nations at a
      certain stage of their development, and not to Russia alone. The existence
      of revolutionary elements among the peasantry, therefore, is not open to
      the slightest doubt. We do not in the least exaggerate the strength of
      these elements; we do not forget the political backwardness and ignorance
      of the peasants, nor in the least wipe out the difference between
      “the Russian revolt, senseless and ruthless,” and the revolutionary
      struggle; we do not in the least forget the endless means which the
      government has at its disposal for the political deception and
      demoralisation of the peasantry. But from all this there follows only one
      thing, that it would be senseless to make the peasantry the
vehicle
of the revolutionary movement, that
a party would be insane to
condition
the revolutionary character
      of its movement upon the revolutionary mood of the peasantry. There can be
      no thought of proposing anything of the sort to the Russian
      Social-Democrats. We say only that a working-class party cannot, without
      violating the basic tenets of Marxism and without committing a tremendous
      political mistake,
overlook
the revolutionary elements that exist
      among the peasantry and not afford those elements support. Whether or not
      the revolutionary elements among the Russian peasantry will be able to
      behave at least in the way the West-European peasants behaved at the time
      of the overthrow of the autocracy is a question to which history has not
      yet provided an answer. If they prove themselves incapable, the
      Social-Democrats will have lost nothing as far as their good name or their
      movement is concerned, since it will not be their fault if the peasantry
      does not respond (may not have the strength to respond) to their
      revolutionary appeal. The working-class movement is going its own way and
      will continue to do so, despite all the betrayals of the big bourgeoisie
      or the petty bourgeoisie. If the peasantry should prove itself
      capable—then that Social-Democracy which did not afford it support
      under these circumstances would for ever lose its good name and the right
      to be regarded as the leading fighter for democracy.
Returning
to the first question presented above, we must say that the
      demand for a “radical revision of agrarian relations” seems
      unclear to us: it may have been sufficient fifteen years ago, but we can
      hardly be satisfied with it today when we must provide guidance for
      agitation and, at the same time, guard ourselves against the defenders of
      small economy, all too numerous in present-day Russian society, who have
      such “influential” supporters as Messrs. Pobedonostsev, Witte,
      and very many officials in the Ministry of Internal Affairs. We take the
      liberty of offering our comrades for discussion the following approximate
      formulation of the third section of the practical part of our programme:
“The
Russian Social-Democratic working-class party, giving its support to
      every revolutionary movement against
the present state and social system, declares that it will support the
      peasantry, insofar as it is capable of revolutionary struggle against the
      autocracy, as the class that suffers most from the Russian people’s lack
      of rights and from the survivals of serfdom in Russian society.
“Proceeding
from this principle, the Russian Social-Democratic
      working-class party demands:
“1)
The abrogation of land

      redemption
[8]
and quit-rent payments and of all duties at present obligatory for the
      peasantry as a tax-paying social-estate.
“2)
The return to the people of the sums of which the government and the
      landed proprietors have robbed the peasants in the form of redemption payments.
“3)
The abolition of collective liability and of all laws that hamper the
      peasant in disposing of his land.
“4)
The abolition of all remnants of the peasant’s feudal dependence
      on the landlord, whether they are due to special laws and institutions
      (e.g., the position of the peasants and workers in the iron-foundry
      districts of the Urals) or to the fact that the land of the peasants and
      the landlords has not yet been demarcated (e.g., survivals of the law of
      easement in the Western

      territory),
[9]
or to the fact that the cutting-off of the peasant land by the landlords
      has left the peasants in what is in actual fact the hopeless position of
      former corvée peasants.
“5)
That peasants be granted the right to demand, in court, the
      reduction of excessively high rents and to prosecute for usury landlords
      and, in general, all persons who take advantage of the necessitous
      condition of the peas ants to conclude with them shackling agreements.”
We
shall have to deal in particular detail with the motives for such a
      proposal—not because this is the most important part of the
      programme, but because it is the most disputed and has a more remote
      connection with the generally established truths that are accepted by all
      Social-Democrats. The introductory proposition on (conditional)
      “support” for the peasantry seems to us to be necessary,
      because the proletariat cannot and must not, in general, take upon itself
      the defence of the interests of a class of small property-owners; it can
      support it only to
the extent to which
that class is
      revolutionary. And since it is
the autocracy that is today the embodiment of all that is backward in
      Russia, all the survivals of serfdom, lack of rights, and
      “patriarchal” oppression, it is essential to point out that
      the working-class party supports the peasantry only to the extent that the
      latter is capable of revolutionary struggle against the
autocracy
. Such a proposition is apparently excluded by the
      following proposition in the draft of the Emancipation of Labour group:
      “The main bulwark of the autocracy resides precisely in the
      political apathy and intellectual backwardness of the peasantry.” But this
      is not a contradiction of theory alone; it is a contradiction of reality,
      because the peasantry (like the class of small property-owners in general)
      is distinguished by the duality of its character. We do not wish to repeat
      well-known political-economic arguments showing the internal
      contradictions of the condition of the peasantry, but we shall call to
      mind the following characterisation by Marx of the French peasantry of the
      early fifties:
“The
Bonaparte dynasty represents not the revolutionary, but the
      conservative peasant; not the peasant that strikes out beyond the
      condition of his social existence, the small holding, but rather the
      peasant who wants to consolidate this holding, not the country folk who,
      linked up with the towns, want to overthrow the old order through their
      own energies, but on the contrary those who, in stupefied seclusion within
      this old order, want to see them selves and their small holdings saved and
      favoured by the ghost of the Empire. It represents not the enlightenment,
      but the superstition of the peasant; not his judgement, but his prejudice;
      not his future, but his past; not his modern Cevennes, but his modern
      Vendée” (
Der 18. Brumaire
.
S
. 99
[10]
).
      The working-class party needs precisely to support the peasantry which is
      striving to overthrow “the old order,” i.e., in Russia, first and
      foremost the autocracy. The Russian Social-Democrats have always
      recognised the necessity to extract and absorb the revolutionary side of
      the Narodnik doctrine and trend. In the programme of the Emancipation of
      Labour group this is expressed not only in the above-quoted demand for
      “a radical revision,” etc., but also in the following words:
      “It goes without saying, incidentally, that even today, people
who are indirect contact with the peasantry could, by their activities
      among them, render important service to the socialist movement in
      Russia. Far from repelling such people, the Social-Democrats will make
      every effort to come to an agreement with them on the basic principles and
      methods of their work.” Fifteen years ago, when the traditions of
      revolutionary Narodism were still alive, such a declaration was
      sufficient; but today we must ourselves begin to discuss “basic
      principles of work” among the peasantry if we want the
      Social-Democratic working-class party to become a vanguard fighter for
      democracy.
But
do not the demands we propose lead to the support, not of the peasants
      themselves, but of their property, to the consolidation of small economy,
      and do they correspond to the entire course of capitalist development? Let
      us examine these questions that are of the highest importance to the
      Marxist.
There
can scarcely be any differences of opinion among Social-Democrats
      with regard to
the substance
of the first and third demands. The
      second demand, by its essence, will probably give rise to differences of
      opinion. The following considerations, to our view, speak in its favour:

      1) it is a fact that the redemption payments represented direct plunder of
      the peasants on the part of the landlords, that the payments were not only
      for peasant land but for serf-holding rights, and that the government
      gathered
more
from the peasants than it paid to the landlords; 2)
      we have no grounds for regarding this fact as something ended and filed
      away in the archives of history, for the aristocratic exploiters
      themselves do not so regard the peasant Reform when they lament over the
      “sacrifices” they made at the time; 3) precisely today, when
      the starvation of millions of peasants is becoming chronic, when the
      government that wastes millions on gifts to the landlords hind
      capitalists, and on an adventurist foreign policy, is haggling for pennies
      off the grants to the starving—precisely today it is appropriate and
      essential to recall what the rule of the autocratic government that serves
      the interests of the privileged classes has cost the people; 4) the
      Social-Democrats cannot remain indifferent spectators of peasant
hunger and the death of peasants from starvation; there have never been
      two opinions among Russian Social-Democrats as to the need for the most
      extensive help to the starving, and hardly anyone will claim that serious
      help is possible without revolutionary measures; 5) the expropriation of
      the royal

      demesne
[11]
and greater mobilisation of lands belonging to the aristocracy, i.e., that
      which would result from the implementation of the proposed demand, would
      bring only benefit to the entire social development of
      Russia.
Against
the proposed demand we shall probably be told,
      mostly, that it is “impracticable.” If such an objection is
      supported only by phrases against “revolutionism” and
      “utopianism,” we can say in advance that such
opportunist
      phrases
do not frighten us in the least and that we do not attach any
      significance to them. If, however, the objection is supported. by an
      analysis of the economic and political conditions of our movement, we
      fully admit the necessity for a more detailed discussion of the question
      and the benefit accruing from a polemic in regard to it. We would only
      mention that this demand does not stand alone but forms part of the demand
      to support the peasantry
to the extent
that the latter is
      revolutionary. History will decide precisely how and with what strength
      these elements in the peasantry will manifest themselves. If we understand
      by the “practicability” of a demand its general
      correspondence, not to the interests of social development, but to a
      specific state of economic and political conditions, it will be a totally
      fallacious criterion, as Kautsky showed convincingly in his polemic with
      Rosa Luxemburg when the latter spoke of the “impracticability”
      (for the Polish working-class party) of the demand for Polish
      independence. Kautsky, at that time, pointed out as an example (if our
      memory serves us) the demand made by the Erfurt Programme on the election
      of civil servants by the people. The “practicability” of this
      demand is mere than doubtful in present-day Germany, but none of the
      Social-Democrats proposed limiting the demands to the narrow bounds of
      what is possible at a given moment or under given conditions.
Further,
as far as the fourth point is concerned, probably no one will object,
      in principle, to the necessity for
Social-Democrats to advance the demand for the abolition of all remnants
      of feudal dependence. What will need clarification will probably be only
      the formulation of that demand, as well as its extent, i.e., whether it
      should include, for example, measures for abolishing the
factual
corvée dependence of the peasants that was created by the
      cutting-off of peasant lands in

      1861.
[12]
In our opinion this question should be decided in the affirmative. The
      tremendous significance of the actual survival of corvée
      (labour-service) economy has been fully established in literature, as has
      also the tremendous retardation of social development (and the development
      of capitalism) caused by this survival. The development of capitalism, of
      course, is leading up to, and will in the end result in, the elimination
      of these survivals “of their own accord, in a natural way.” But,
      first, these survivals are extraordinarily tenacious, so that their rapid
      elimination is not to be expected; secondly—and mainly—the
      “natural way” means nothing other than the dying-out of the
      peasants who,
in point of fact
(due to labour-service, etc.), are
      tied to the soil and enslaved by the landlords. It stands to reason that
      under these circumstances the Social-Democrats cannot allow their
      programme to be silent on this question. It may be asked: How could this
      demand be implemented? We think it unnecessary to deal with this in the
      programme. The implementation of this demand (as of almost all others in
      this section, depending on the strength of the revolutionary elements
      among the peasantry) will, of course, necessitate a detailed examination
      of local conditions by local, elective, peasant committees as a
      counterweight to the Committees of

      Nobles
[13]
that accomplished their “legal” plunder in the sixties; the
      democratic demands of the programme adequately define the democratic
      institutions required for this purpose. This would be precisely the
      “radical revision of agrarian relations” of which the
      programme of the Emancipation of Labour group speaks. As we said above, we
      agree in principle with this point of the Emancipation of Labour group’s
      draft and would only: 1) specify the conditions under which the
      proletariat can struggle for the class interests of the peasantry; 2)
      define the
character
of the revision—the abolition
of the remnants of feudal dependence; 3) express the demands more
      precisely.
We
foresee another objection: a re-examination of the question of cut-off
      lands, etc., should lead to the return of those lands to the
      peasantry. This is obvious. But will this not strengthen small property,
      small holdings? Can the Social-Democrats desire the replacement of the big
      capitalist economy, which is perhaps being conducted on the lands
      plundered from the peasantry, by small economy? This would, indeed, be a
reactionary
measure!
We
answer: undoubtedly the substitution of small-scale for large-scale
      economy is reactionary, and we must not favour it. But the demand we are
      discussing is
conditioned
by the aim of “abolishing the
      remnants of feudal dependence”; consequently, it cannot lead to the
      fragmentation of big holdings; it applies only to old holdings that are,
      in essence, based purely on the corvée system;
in relation to
      them
a peasant holding, free of all medieval impediments (cf. point
      3)
is progressive, not reactionary.
It is, of course, not easy to
      draw a line of demarcation here, but we do not believe that any one demand
      in our programme can be “easily” realised. Our role is to
      outline the basic principles and basic tasks; those who will be called
      upon to decide these problems in practice will know how to consider the
      details.
The
purpose of last point is identical with that of the preceding: the
      struggle against all remnants of the
pre-capitalist mode of
      production
(so abundant in the Russian countryside). It will be
      remembered that the renting of land by peasants in Russia very often
      serves to conceal survivals of corvé relations. The idea for this
      last point was borrowed from Kautsky, who pointed out that, in relation to
      Ireland, even Gladstone’s liberal administration had enacted a law in 1881
      granting the courts the right to reduce excessively high rents, and
      included in the number of desirable demands: “The reduction of
      exorbitant rents by courts especially set up for this purpose”
      (
Reduzierung übermässiger Pachtzinsen durch dazu eingesetzte
      Gerichtshöfe).
This would be particularly useful in Russia
      (given the condition, of course, of the courts being democratically
      organised) in the sense that it would eliminate corvée
      relations. We think that to this we could also add the
demand for the extension of the laws on usury to cover enslaving
      agreements; in the Russian village, bondage is so widespread, so heavily
      oppressive to the peasant in his
capacity as a worker
, so
      exceedingly obstructive to social progress, that the struggle against it
      is particularly necessary. And it would not be more difficult for a court
      to establish the enslaving, usurious character of an agreement, than to
      establish the excessive nature of rent.
In
general, the demands we propose reduce themselves, in our opinion, to
      two main objectives: 1) to abolish all
pre-capitalist
, feudal
      institutions and relations in the countryside (the complement to these
      demands being contained in the first section of the practical part of the
      programme); 2) to give the class struggle in the countryside a more open
      and conscious character. We believe that precisely these principles should
      serve as a guide for the Social-Democratic “agrarian
      programme” in Russia. It is necessary to dissociate ourselves
      resolutely from the attempts, so numerous in Russia, to
smooth
      down
the class struggle in the countryside. The dominant
      liberal-Narodnik tendency is distinguished precisely by this feature, but,
      in resolutely rejecting it (as was done in the “Appendix to the
      Report of the Russian Social-Democrats at the International Congress in
      London”), we should not forget that we must take particular note of the
      revolutionary content of Narodism. “To the extent that Narodism was
      revolutionary, i.e., came out against the social-estate, bureaucratic rule
      and against the barbarous forms of exploitation and oppression of the
      people which the state supported, to that extent Narodism had to be
      included, with relevant amendments, as a component part of the programme
      of Russian Social-Democracy” (Axelrod,
Present Tasks and
      Tactics
, p. 7). Two basic forms of the class struggle are today
      intertwined in the Russian countryside: 1) the struggle of the peasantry
      against the privileged landed proprietors and against the remnants of
      serfdom; 2) the struggle of the emergent rural proletariat against the
      rural bourgeoisie. For Social-Democrats the second struggle, of course, is
      of greater importance; but they must also indispensably support the first
      struggle
to the extent that it does not contradict
the interests
      of social development.
It is no accident that the peasant question has always occupied and
      continues to occupy such a prominent place in Russian society and in the
      Russian revolutionary movement: this fact is a reflection of the great
      significance still retained by the first of the two forms of struggle.
In
conclusion, there is one possible misunderstanding against which we
      should be on guard. We spoke of Social-Democracy’s “revolutionary
      appeal” to the peasants. Does this not mean diffusion, is it not
      harmful to the essential concentration of forces for work among the
      industrial proletariat? Not in the least; the necessity for such a
      concentration is recognised by
all
Russian Social-Democrats; it
      figures in the draft of the Emancipation of Labour group (1885) and again
      in the pamphlet,
The Tasks of the Russian Social-Democrats
(1898). Consequently, there are absolutely no grounds at all to fear that
      the Social-Democrats will split their forces. A programme is not an
      instruction; a programme must embrace the
whole
movement, and in
      practice, of course, first one and then another aspect of the movement has
      to be brought into the foreground. No one will dispute the necessity to
      speak in the programme of rural, as well as industrial, workers, although
      in the present situation there is not a single Russian Social-Democrat who
      would think of calling upon the comrades to go to the village. The
      working-class movement, however, even apart from our efforts, will
      inevitably lead to the spread of democratic ideas in the
      countryside. “Agitation based on economic interests will inevitably
      lead Social-Democratic circles directly up against facts that show clearly
      the closest solidarity of interests between our industrial proletariat and
      the peasant masses” (Axelrod,
ibid.
, p. 13). For this
      reason an
“Agrarprogramm
” (
in the sense
      indicated
; strictly speaking, of course, it is not an “agrarian
      programme” at all) is an absolute necessity for Russian
      Social-Democrats. In our propaganda and agitation we constantly come upon
      peasant-workers, that is, factory workers who retain their connections
      with the village, who have relatives or a family in the village and who
      travel back and forth. Questions of land redemption payments, collective
      liability, and rent are of vital interest even to large numbers of
      metropolitan
workers (to say nothing of the workers in the Urals, for example, amongst
      whom Social-Democratic propaganda and agitation has begun to find its
      way). We should be remiss in performing our duty, if we did not take care
      to give precise guidance to Social-Democrats and class-conscious workers
      who go to the village. Nor should we forget the rural intelligentsia,
      elementary school teachers, for instance. The latter are so humiliated,
      materially and spiritually, they observe so closely and know from their
      own experience the lack of rights and the oppression of the people, that
      there can be no doubt at all of the sympathetic reception among them of
      Social-Democratic ideas (given the further growth of the movement).
These
then, in our opinion, should be the component parts of a programme
      of the Russian Social-Democratic working-class party: 1) a statement on
      the basic character of the economic development of Russia; 2) a statement
      on the inevitable result of capitalism: the growth of poverty and the
      increasing indignation of the workers; 3) a statement on the class
      struggle of the proletariat as the basis of our movement; 4) a statement
      on the final aims of the Social-Democratic working-class movement—on
      its striving to win political power for the accomplishment of these
      aims—and on the international character of the movement; 5) a
      statement on the essentially political nature of the class struggle; 6) a
      statement to the effect that the Russian absolutism, which conditions the
      lack of rights and the oppression of the people and patronises the
      exploiters, is the chief hindrance to the working-class movement, and that
      the winning of political liberty, essential in the interests of the entire
      social development, is, therefore, the most urgent political task of the
      Party; 7) a statement to the effect that the Party will support all
      parties and sections of the population that struggle against the autocracy
      and will combat the demagogic intrigues of our government; 8) the
      enumeration of the basic democratic demands; then,
      9) demands for the benefit of the working class; and 10) demands for the
      benefit of the peasantry, with an explanation of the general character of
      these demands.
We
are fully conscious of the difficulty of providing a completely
      satisfactory formulation of the programme
without a number of conferences with comrades; but we consider it
      essential to set about this task, believing (for the reasons indicated
      above) that postponement is impermissible. We hope to receive the aid of
      all the theoreticians of the Party (headed by the members of the
      Emancipation of Labour group), as well as of all socialists doing
      practical work in Russia (not only of Social-Democrats: it would be very
      desirable to hear the opinion of socialists of other groups and we would
      not refuse to publish their opinion), and the aid of all class-conscious
      workers.
Notes
[1]
Lenin wrote “
A Draft Programme of Our Party
” when he
      was still in exile, as can be seen from the date "1899” which he
      inscribed on the manuscript and from the letter to the editorial group
      of
Rabochaya Gazeta
(see p. 207 of this volume). The mention o
      the year 1900 in the text is evidently due to the fact that the issue of
Rabochaya Gazeta
for which it was intended was to have appeared
      that year.
“A
Draft Programme of Our Party” represented a continuation of
      Lenin’s work on programmatic questions which he had begun in prison in
      1895-96 (see present edition, Vol. 2, “Draft and Explanation of a
      Programme of the Social-Democratic Party,” pp.  93-121).
[2]
Karl Marx,
Critique of the Gotha Programme
(Marx and Engels,
Selected Works
, Vol. II, Moscow, 1958, p. 16).
[3]
Karl Marx,
Capital
, Vol. I, Moscow, 1958, p. 763.
[4]
The Erfurt Programme
of German Social-Democracy was adopted in
      October 1891 at a congress in Erfurt in place of the Gotha Programme of
      1875; the errors in the latter were exposed by Marx in his
Critique of
      the Gotha Programme
.
[5]
Lenin refers to the leaflets distributed by the government during the
      strikes of 1896 and 1897. In the leaflet issued on June 15, 1896,
      S. Y. Witte, Minister of Finance, appealed to the workers not to listen to
      “agitators” (socialists) and to await better living conditions
      and improved working conditions from the government to whom “the
      affairs of the factory owners and the workers are alike dear.” Witte
      threatened to punish the workers for the unauthorised cessation of work as
      “an illegal act.”
[6]
Lenin refers to the “Provisional Regulations Governing the Military
      Service of Students of Higher Educational Institutions Expelled from Those
      Institutions for the Joint Organisation of Disorders.” Under those
      regulations, approved on July 29 (August 10). 1899, students who
      participated in actions directed against the police
regime obtaining in institutions of higher learning would be expelled from
      universities and drafted into the tsarist army as privates for a term
      ranging from one to three years. The students of all higher educational
      institutions demanded the repeal of the “Provisional
      Regulations” (“The Drafting of 183 Students into the
      Army” in the present volume, pp. 414-19).
[7]
Rural Superintendent
(
Zemsky Nachalnik
in
      Russian)—an administrative post instituted by the tsarist government
      in 1889 to strengthen the authority of the landlords over the
      peasants. The Rural Superintendents were appointed from among the local
      landed nobility and were granted very great powers, not merely
      administrative, but also judicial, which included the right to arrest
      peasants and administer corporal punishment.
[8]
Land redemption payments
were established by the
      “Regulation Governing Redemption by Peasant Who Have Emerged from
      Serf Dependence...” adopted on February 19, 1861. The tsarist government
      compelled the peasants, in return for the allotments assigned to them, to
      pay redemption to the landlords amounting to several times the real price
      of the land. When the deal was concluded, the government paid the landlord
      the purchase price, which was considered a debt owed by the peasant to be
      repaid over a period of 49 years. The instalments to be paid annually by
      the peasants were called land redemption payments. These were an
      intolerable burden on the peasants and caused their impoverishment and
      ruin. The peasants formerly belonging to landlords alone paid nearly 2,000
      million rubles to the tsarist government, whereas the market price of the
      land that the peasants received did not exceed 544 million rubles. In view
      of the fact that the adoption of the redemption scheme by the peasants did
      not take place at once, but dragged on until 1883, the redemption payments
      were not to have ended before 1932. The peasant movement during the first
      Russian revolution (1905-07), however, compelled the tsarist government to
      abolish the redemption payments as from January 1907.
[9]
Law of easement
—the right to make use of the property of
      others. In the present case Lenin refers to survivals of feudal relations
      in the Western Territory. After the Reform of 1861 the peasants were
      compelled to render supplementary services for the benefit of the
      landlords for the right to use common roads, meadows, pastures, water,
      etc.
[10]
Karl Marx,
The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
(Marx and
	Engels,
Selected Works
, Vol. I, Moscow, 1958, p. 335).
[11]
Royal demesne
—lands belonging to members of the
      tsar’s family.
[12]
Cut-off lands
(
otrezki
)—the pasture lands, woods,
      etc., which the landlords “cut
off
,” i.e., of which they
      deprived the peasants when serfdom was abolished in Russia.
[13]
Gubernia Committees of Nobles
were set up by the tsarist
      authorities in 1857-58 to draw up plans for the “Peasant Reform,”
      for the “emancipation” of the peasants.
The
plans put forward by the Committees of Nobles envisaged an
      “emancipation” that would benefit only the landlords; the
      committees effected the “legal” plunder of the peasants in the
      sixties.
Works
		  Index
|
Volume 4
|
Collected Works
|
L.I.A. Index
<
		  backward
forward >

----------------------------------------



----------------------------------------

MIA: Admin:
Volunteers:
      Biographies
Volunteers’
	      Biographies
DAVID
WALTERS
Name:
David Walters (davidwalters {@} marxists.org)
Born:
The Bronx, NY
Political Party:
None
Occupation:
Retired, former Director,
Holt Labor Library
Union:
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245, Ret.
Joined MIA [as part of the MEIA]:
1995
MIA Responsibilities:
Founding member and Director.
Administrator of or work with the:
Leon Trotsky Internet Archive
[English language]
Co-Administrator of the
Lenin Internet Archive
[English language].
John MacLean Internet Archive
E. V. Debs Internet Archive
Daniel De Leon Internet Archive
Additionally I am a founder of the
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism On-Line
[1996].  Lastly I take responsibility in updating the MIA’s
What’ New
page.
To write me, use the following address:
MIA Steering Committee
.

----------------------------------------

MIA:
V.I. Lenin Internet Archive:
Works Index
Collected Works
The Collected Works of Vladimir Lenin, as published by Progress
	      Publishers (and Foreign Languages Press) in the U.S.S.R.
These volumes are in progress and need to be completed:
39
,
40
.
• A specific to-do list of remaining work
		on the CW is available
here
.
•
	    To help out, contact the
LIA Director>
. 

	      (Spanish is next!)
Selected Works
A list of Lenin’s writings selected by the Editors of the
	      V.I. Lenin Internet Archive for their political influence and
	      significance, historical value and reflection of Lenin’s
	      beliefs.
Year Index
Partial list of texts arranged by year.  Refer to
	      collected works index for a list of completed volumes.
All Works—By Title
This is a “quick reference” guide with
4,170
of a potential
4,500
documents

	      listed in one long file (160k) and organized
	      alphabetically by title only. It is presented in a very
	      simple
list
format.
[This a work in progress and not fully completed yet]
All Works—By Date
This is a “quick reference” guide with
4,170
of a potential
4,500
documents

	      listed in one long file (160k) and organized by date. It
	      is  presented in a very simple
list
format.
[This a work in progress and not fully completed yet]
Lenin Subject Index
Various key works of Lenin arranged by subject
	      [Always under construction!]
Lenin Quotes
Quotes from Lenin, linked to the context from which the 
		quote is taken — the only authentic, sourced list of Lenin quotes on the 
		internet.
* * *
A Note on
		  “Notes” and 
		  Other Issues
Concerning
Lenin Collected Works
* * *
Lenin Internet Archive
|
Marxists Internet 
	      Archive
Director of Lenin Internet Archive:
D. Walters

----------------------------------------

MIA
:
Marxist Writers
: Lenin
Text Index
|
MIA Index
Free
eBooks for Lenin
Lenin in other languages

----------------------------------------